The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: You still haven't answered why of all people, it was Snowman that you felt the need to bring to the table that much that you went and voted for him the first chance you had. Why not just keep saying, I think Snowman is bad because a,b, and c, and then again and again? Why just vote? Why not let him defend himself? It's not like were were in a rush? If the votes were changeable, I'd get it, but I don't now


linki: So you think Boo is a hypocrite or a baddie?

A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.

I like your answer here, but if you hadn't voted yet, would he still be your top suspect? If not him, who would you have voted for, and why?

If I hadn't voted yet, I would still vote for Snowman. Nothing he or anyone else has said has changed my mind about him since yesterday.

Since we were both so sure on Vomps in the Film game, and were wrong, I wonder how it is you're so sure of yourself. Also, I asked who other than him you'd vote for.

Boomslang wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm starting to think Llama might not be bad after all ...

He says, conveniently, long after his vote has been cast. TH, I've been noting a number of cases where you pick up and then quickly drop suspicions (or vice versa), and I can't help but wonder if this is baddie butt-covering in the case that lynches go in undesirable ways.

Turnip Head wrote:FZ, if you keep reading I dropped I dropped the Boo thing as quickly as I picked it up

Turnip Head wrote:The cases on FZ and Snowman seem pretty weak to me. I hope neither of them get lynched. But where's FZ? She has been pretty quiet...

followed almost immediately by

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah, the Snowman <---- Boo <---- SVS train of trust is a bit disconcerting, I suppose. SVS, can you clarify your opinion of Boo and/or answer Epi's question about him?

There's a place where you question a Boo post, then retract your suspicion:

Turnip Head wrote:This is the snipped portion of the boo post I'm talking about. Yes, boo also mentions that Trice didn't need defending because he was defending himself. I still feel like something doesn't add up, but idk.

followed by

Turnip Head wrote:I have to agree BR, on reread I found it a lot less questionable than I originally thought

No shame in changing your opinions in light of new evidence, but many of these turnabouts happen pretty quickly, before the discussion has had a chance to progress altogether that much.

I consider TH to be a player similar to me in style, and since I can change my mind based on one vote, this flip flopping doesn't concern me

Matahari wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

Who is your top suspect Mata?
I feel like you're skating by a little. Giving input and thought into things (a thinker, like TH calls it), but I don't think I actually know what you think.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: You still haven't answered why of all people, it was Snowman that you felt the need to bring to the table that much that you went and voted for him the first chance you had. Why not just keep saying, I think Snowman is bad because a,b, and c, and then again and again? Why just vote? Why not let him defend himself? It's not like were were in a rush? If the votes were changeable, I'd get it, but I don't now


linki: So you think Boo is a hypocrite or a baddie?

A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.

I like your answer here, but if you hadn't voted yet, would he still be your top suspect? If not him, who would you have voted for, and why?

S~V~S wrote:

FZ. wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I just reread it, and I think I said quite a lot. Normally I do this in a number of posts, I can do that instead if you like.

I meant in terms of hunting for baddies. Can you point me to one thing you said that actually resembled something like that? Again, no offence, I'm not trying to insult you.

Actually I addressed this earlier. I am not a "baddie hunter", I am a watcher.

Not everyone plays the same game. I am not a case builder. I watch for things that get my attention, and then I build on those things. I don't go around pouncing on trivia (becasue that is what I think "baddie hunting" actually is).

You play your way, i will play mine, and judge me for how well I play MY game, not yours. What games can you think of where I have aggressively baddie hunted? I have barely been a baddie in the last few months, not since Fight Club. Tell me where you saw me aggressively baddie hunting in those games.

I judge you based on how I expect YOU to act, not on how much you are acting like me.

Linki, yeah, I do too, actually. I want to be ahead of the person who thinks I am not contributing

I don't see you as the aggressive type, more like the really nice type
I was just catching up and I was reading your big post and ended up thinking that after that, it didn't give me any clue to what you are thinking in terms of any of the players. Maybe I was wrong. Did you give any thoughts on people you suspect other than me last day? Not even in terms of building a case, but rather who is pinging you at the moment. Sorry if you did and I missed it.


By the way, am I the only one pinged by BWT, his vote for Russ, and his whole behaviour surrounding TH and Russ? Just seems like the easiest suspicion ever. If it's role related, Russ is the last person to talk about it because it's infodumping, and BWT knows it




By the way, am I the only one pinged by BWT, his vote for Russ, and his whole behaviour surrounding TH and Russ? Just seems like the easiest suspicion ever. If it's role related, Russ is the last person to talk about it because it's infodumping, and BWT knows it

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:And now llama is back to missing the difference between a non-participant and a low poster. We'd established that one already. Multiple times.

Nope. I get the difference. My point is I could have avoided this by not posting at all. I could have been a non-particiapnt for the first two days and gotten a free pass. I chose to play the game, which was clearly a mistake.

Yes, you could have. My point about non-participants is that I still wouldn't have given you a free pass, and that the problem is, as you and I both dislike, there are people who would have given you that free pass.

And as I have said many times, and you have intentionally taken out of context many times, being a non-participant would not have been the same as being a low poster, which is why you call me a hypocrite, even though we both know, and anyone who reads what I've said knows, that is not true.

I don't understand why you consider Russ a non-participant but not Snowman. I have never understood this. They have both posted, but neither has posted very much or really been willing to say anything.

You still haven't answered why of all people, it was Snowman that you felt the need to bring to the table that much that you went and voted for him the first chance you had. Why not just keep saying, I think Snowman is bad because a,b, and c, and then again and again? Why just vote? Why not let him defend himself? It's not like were were in a rush? If the votes were changeable, I'd get it, but I don't now


linki: So you think Boo is a hypocrite or a baddie?

S~V~S wrote:I just reread it, and I think I said quite a lot. Normally I do this in a number of posts, I can do that instead if you like.

I meant in terms of hunting for baddies. Can you point me to one thing you said that actually resembled something like that? Again, no offence, I'm not trying to insult you.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Mata is completely wrong about civvies being more careful than baddies and she has also apparently never played a game with me before.

FZ, I still suspect Turnip Head, albeit slightly less than I did yesterday, but I think it is necessary to rattle Snowman out of his cocoon of barely posting, non-serious hijinks before the trail goes cold. He is the person I most suspect today, so that is why he got my vote. I voted early in order to make a splash and get people talking about him, which I think needs to happen more.

I also like your suspicion of Bea. That kind of posting always pings me too.

I agree re Mata, I also think baddies are more careful, I know I am much more careful when I am bad. As for Mata, I think she is incredibly careful regardless of alignment. She is one of the scariest players, imo, when she is not on my side. Not so sure about the rest yet, maybe by the end of this post, I will be.

Turnip Head wrote:For the curious, here is the Snowman post that Rico is referencing, as framed by Rico himself:

Ricochet wrote:This is his problematic post, the last part especially, if you ask me.

Snowman wrote:Thank you Zomberella and SVS. I have no idea if either of you are bad or not, but you boiled down your take on all the players in one post, and I appreciate it. I frankly don't have the time to comb through a couple hundred episodes of "Trice Yells at Everyone" every day. I'll offer my insight and contribute what I can, but I don't see the "discussion" coalescing around anyone in particular. All I see is argument ad nauseum around the D0 poll.

I'm happy to see so many involved, but how do you find so much to talk about when literally nothing has happened yet? The most earth-shattering event so far is the realization that Russ hasn't posted anything.

Even if ignorant or uninvolved, it still made me very wary.

I think maybe that that depends on ones idea of "nothing happened". Alot of talking happened, but no lynches or NKs or night powers, which is how I read this post. Day one, nothing happened yet. I think this is a fairly weak reason to suspect someone, tbh.

DharmaHelper wrote:For those who cannot see TH's avatar

Ha ha ha sometimes you are my favorite person

Turnip Head wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I've seen DP on the site. In fact, I see him viewing the thread right this very minute.

I'm here. I've had my browser open with the page up but I'm not really reading at this moment because I'm working on a rather intense college assignment.

Then how did you see your name mentioned so quickly?

Ha ha, I thought the same thing, the time stamp says it was five minutes.

Turnip Head wrote:You know nothing, Llama Seventy-Three.

It is known

Long Con wrote:I think people generally put too much stock in the idea of someone newer being "coached" in the thread. In my experience, it rarely happens. To suggest that Snowman is NOT in BTSC because of the lack of coaching on "bandwagon" is not something I would ever consider a reasonable assumption. Even if he had BTSC, I doubt that he would run everything he says through the chat before he posts it.

Totally. I never coach nubs in that way. Maybe sometimes with civ BTS nubs, but never with baddies.

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

boo wrote:Yes, the quote you pulled doesn't add up. She said she wants to talk about him and that she wasn't ready to vote for him.

NO HER

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

It means in a discussion about Snowman, you highlight something Zomberella said to shift discussion to her. That's fine. I thought I was just being clever.

I did not think he as trying to shift to her, I thought he was demonstrating a point by using her quote?

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:For no reason at all other than I had the time to do it, I made a purely subjective listing of all the players in the game and organized it into what sort of role they all are playing in the thread. The roles are "Case Maker" (a player who makes cases against and lobbies heavily for lynching their suspects), "Thinker" (a player who considers others' opinions and POVs, and reacts to Case Makers), "Natural Suspect" (a player whose behavior is deemed overtly suspicious, and this fact has contributed to their gameplay in a meaningful way), and "Elusive" (a player who makes no effort to be recognized for their gameplay). Players may be in more than one category. I have also ranked players according to how much each has contributed to the role, from greatest or most substantial contributions to least. Ranking takes into account a player's post count as well as the content of those posts, as determined by me. I have also included myself in these rankings, to further exemplify that this is completely subjective.

Case Makers
1. DharmaHelper
2. Epignosis
3. boo
4. AceofSpaces
5. birdwithteeth11
6. FZ
7. thellama73

Thinkers
1. bea
2. juliets
3. FZ.
4. S~V~S
5. Ricochet
6. thellama73
7. MetalMarsh89
8. DharmaHelper
9. boo
10. Zomberella12
11. Turnip Head
12. Elohcin
13. Black Rock
14. Epignosis
15. Matahari
16. Long Con
79. Spacedaisy
18. AceofSpaces
19. birdwithteeth11
20. Bass_the_clever
21. Made
22. Boomslang
23. Snowman
24. Russtifinko
25. Roxy/Zeek (not enough data tbh)
26. Disgruntled Porcupine

Elusive
1. DisgruntledPorcupine - general lack of participation
2. Russtifinko - unwilling to talk about his silence
3. Turnip Head - a degree of unwillingness to explain his votes
4. Epignosis - a degree of unwillingness to explain his non-vote for Russ

I am in the middle of catching up, and am doing an "as I go along" catch up post, but I have to say, TH, that I really love this. Sometimes Case Makers suspects thinkers for not being Case Makers, when all it really is is that they have a different way of playing than the case makers. I am a sucky casemaker, but a pretty good thinker. Sometimes.

Yeah, well...keep reading.

I did. I still like it, even if TH is potentially an unlynchable evil person, this list is still pretty awesome

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I was really hoping people would jump in with their own lists but the idea didn't catch on.

Because it's a pointless distraction.

A pointless distraction from what? Listening to Alpha Males bash each other for hours on end? I like lists, and I think understanding how people play has value. Even if the listmaker turns out to be a very bad person.

Ricochet wrote:Don't know why, but I don't think TH is a Ryuk/Shinigami-player. I already replied this to BWT. Why would TH (or any Shinigami-player) out himself in advance of being outed by two failed lynches/kills?

Good Point.

Epignosis wrote:boo is 75% boob.

Just pointing that out.

And now I have to go do family stuff. Then read further back later, I seem to have totally missed the Bea case, I only saw allusions to it but not the meat of the thing.

Wow, this was suck a long post, yet you said nothing (no offence), and then you left. Do you think this post contributed to the discussion in any way?

Turnip Head wrote:FZ, if you keep reading I dropped I dropped the Boo thing as quickly as I picked it up

Yeah, I saw it. Damn, I hate having to be behind all the time.

boo wrote:I was going under the impression we had all realized but decided not discuss the obvious TH being a baddie thing, but it seems like people are still taking him seriously for some reason, so I'm just going to put it out there.

Ryuk – A shinigami who appears to Light shortly after he discovers his Death Note, Ryuk explains that he has to stay with Light until he either dies or the Death Note is destroyed, and that he ‘dropped’ the Death Note into the human world because he was bored. As a shinigami, he cannot be harmed by humans, nor can he be seen by humans who have not made contact with his Death Note. Oh, and he loves apples. Has BTSC with Light Yagami. Because he is a shinigami, votes by humans in lynches do not affect him, and writing his name down in a Death Note will not kill him. Thus, he cannot be lynched or night killed. However, if he is about to be killed for the second time, although he will still not die, his existence will be made aware to everyone, outing him. Even though Ryuk refuses to take sides and often finds pleasure at Light’s misfortunes, he accompanies Light, and even may assist him. Once Raye Penber has started following Light, Ryuk offers Light the Shinigami Eye deal. If Light takes the offer, Light can role check two players every night but he must kill one of those two players. If Light currently cannot kill with a Death Note, he cannot role check anyone. Because the Eye Deal cuts his lifespan, all votes against Light in lynches will be doubled for the remainder of the game. If Light refuses the Eye Deal, he still may change his mind and accept it later at any time.

There's an unkillable baddie. No win condition actually includes needing this role (or there other two shinigami's, assuming they are also both unkillable), so I guess them being unkillable sort of makes sense.

But... I mean come on, does anyone really want to argue that this isn't TH's role and that he's already made it obvious? I imagine he began acting like he did D1 hoping to waste a lynch or two as we tried to kill him and failed, but with the role reveal it seems pretty obvious that this is his role (or one similar to it).

Of course, I'd be 100% ok with lynching him today to test it, but I'm also almost certain it would be a waste of a lynch so what's the point?

Anyways, there seem to be people still taking what he says seriously, so I figured the easiest way to explain why I won't be is to just put it out there.

So what does it mean? He wins no matter what? He doesn't have to do anything? Not sure I get this. Sorry if I'm dense here, but I admit to not exactly following all the roles and stuff. This is too overwhelming and I'm trying to play as I play any mafia game


linki: What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:What's up with boo defending Snowman, a low poster, despite his earlier insistence that we lynch his kind? Boo, where does Snowman fall in your Thinker rankings? Who's below him? Who do you think is worthy of your vote so far?

I don't much care if Snowman is a low poster or not, what is interesting is the not so subtle defense. Many people have weighed in on this subject but have moved on. Boo tweaked me day one and has now again today.

This is what bothers me with how people here think. If someone is strongly defending someone, is it more likely that he just believes that person is being wrongfully accused (or at least that the reasons are lame), or that they are two baddies working together? While both are possible, experience tells me the former is a lot more plausible (the defender being a baddie instead of the accused is also a possibility, but less likely here), because it automatically gets them connected and people start looking at the defender badly. Especially if the accused really does turn out bad. And I've tried as a baddie to do the WIFOM and once defended a team mate strongly, and not surprisingly, it got people to look at me more closely. So for me, most time someone defends someone strongly, it's because they actually believe in what they're saying

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Like Epi said, it's odd that Boo didn't feel comfortable defending Trice on the chance that he flipped bad, but has no qualms defending Snowman, after he says he wants to lynch low posters.

I don't feel comfortable with someone attributing an oversimplification to me, especially if that someone has voted already.

If I had another non-llama vote to cast today, it might be going to Boo. I thought I understood and agreed with your point, please clarify if you'd like.

Linki: it's the TH version, but I can find it.

Seriously? This is surprising coming from you. I didn't see it coming. While I can't rule out Boo being bad, this is definitely the last reason I think he should take flak for

Lol, that was a very short post Boo, but thanks, and I completely agree, at least with the early vote part. As for the not playing how you say you play, I think we all like to think we play in a different way, and we fault others for doing something we do. I guess I've done it this game as well, so at least in that regard, I can't fault him. That said, his actions themselves, even without how he claims he plays and the early vote, to that specific player, might be enough for me to vote for him. I'm still going to continue catching up before making up my mind.

I'm finally here. Like I said, I'm never here on Friday-Saturdays.
I'm in the middle of catching up, and I saw Boo voted for llama, after last I read he was saying Boomslang's behaviour was bad. I wonder what happened to that.

Also, I want to address the whole Snowman issue, though if he's posted since, I haven't read it. But the point is about him being newbie. We've all been newbies. I think even when you're new, your nature comes to play. I didn't get more vocal the more I played. I started like that. In addition, it's the nature of your posts. The fact he doesn't have BTSC means nothing. If I'm not wrong, MP brought him to this site and introduced him to the game (or is it someone else?) In any case, he can always ask the host, I know I did when I started playing. Not saying he has to be bad, though he does feel different from the Donner game, but newbiness after one played and was active does not make him handicapped. He can manipulate and lie with like the most veteran players.

And to address this point made by Boo:

boo wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I'm curious to hear as to why Snowman's experience level would change the tone, content, meaning and whatever else of his posts here. I'm genuinely open to counter-arguments - not least from Snowman himself, of course - especially given that I'm new myself (but at the same time I see myself as giving my equal best in all my games so far ). What Epignosis pointed out, I think, was that he was quite the active and astute newbie to being with, compared to which his style here can indeed be less involved, but it can equally be a choice or tactic put into execution. Not to mention that another player in equal status with him - Zomberella - was almost voted by a more experienced player on her first day, plus is on several other players top lists for her D1 behaviour.

BTSC, if he's only played when he's had it, that for me pretty much entirely explains why he would be more withdrawn.

What Epig pointed out was not that he was more active but that he accused him from the start and was more aggressive, and here, his posts are very different. There's a big difference. And the BTSC in Donner shouldn't have made him more aggressive, in my opinion, because we were all clueless of what was going on, yet he just started playing, which is something I didn't see him do here, yet. It's okay to give him some more time (as it is for other people), and I guess that's why I was hesitant to vote for him last day, but there's just so much we can let the newbie claim guide our decisions.

bea wrote:

FZ. wrote:At the risk of sounding even more not in the midst of things "like you expect FZ", what has been revealed, and what is everyone talking about when asking about Epi and the eye?

To conclude, because this is a long post:
1. She's using other's suspicions not giving anything of her own.
2. Her reasoning for going after me are the same as what she's accused me of doing, not to mention she keeps saying how I supposedly play, yet she's never seen me as a baddie.
3. She's asking a lot of questions but not saying anything conclusive apart from her "gut feeling" about me. It's like she seems right in the middle of things, but it feels not genuine

1) Yup. I do that a lot. Because I'm not the world's greatest case maker. I often spend the first few days of a new game reading and asking questions and pointing out what I agree with because it helps me find my footing and helps me to try to figure out who I trust. Excepting that game on K-site, where I was the info role, have you ever seen me be the sort of player that builds cases or agressively go after people.
2) I agreed with svs that your suspicion of zombra was odd because you were doing the same thing and she was a new player. Yup. I did that too. I am saying that I expect to see different things from you based on past behavior and I'm not seeing all those things. You were totes right that Tricey was looking other places. Yup I agreed with that. I did not agree with zombra and your suspicion of me kinda feels like a No U. I'm used to a different sort of FZ. I could be wrong, you could be civ in this game too - but your behavior here feels different from how it did at the beginning of the champions game when I was pretty positive by this time in the game you were civ.
3) Yup. I ask a lot of questions. I recall in the Champs game that it made you pretty sure I was civ. What changed your mind between here and there? How do I feel "less genuine" in this game?

The difference that I see is, while usually you say what you agree with and what you don't regarding suspicions, this time, you're only agreeing.
I seriously hate the No U argument. If I see someone using really fishy reasons to suspect me, you can be sure I'll accuse you back. Like the comment on how I call people to participate more on K-site. Why don't you go back to the games where there were more than 20 players, like here and see if I told people to not talk to much. Also, look at how many speed games I've played here compared to the big ones. It feels like you're just using easy things to suspect me, and you're bandwagoning on others' suspicions. Since you have played more with me, I expect you to know that I have games where I am less sure and get a little lost. It often happens in big games, hence why I don't like playing them.


Regarding llama, I don't buy your reason for an early vote for Snowman. Out of all the people you could have voted for to get a discussion going on them and to draw them out, you chose Snowman? Was he such a big threat to the civvies that you voted an early and unchangeable vote? I feel like a civvie llama would wait more when votes can't be changed. In my experience baddies like to vote early to not have to take responsibility later on, unless one of their own is at the risk of going down. And since most baddies don't even know who their own is, that reason disappears. So your early vote gives me the biggest pinge

S~V~S wrote:

juliets wrote:TH, I want to sort out what people see in Snowman and re-read FZ. It seems like the case on FZ. is more meta and I don't recall if I've ever seen her bad. So I'll re-read her posts and see if I see anything there. I'm not looking at DH, Epi, boo, you or SVS at this time but there are a lot of people that are just sitting there with a question mark for me. Depending on what happens tomorrow I'll re-read some others as well. I'm not convinced about anyone right now.

FZ was bad in the Hobbit iirc. I recall her talking fairly extensively (maybe in a post game?) About how she dislikes being bad and isn't good at it. So there must have been another since I modded Hobbit, didn't play it. One of the speed games? Maybe one of the games I played at Ksite? Prolly not since I seem to recall it in a post game context.

I am sure she can tell me. She is seeming a bit more like her civvie self at this time, so I am stepping back from *probably voting* to *watching*.

Nope, I only played one baddie game on this site, and one indie. Go ask my K-site friends how I am when I'm bad. They'll probably tell you I act even more aggressively than I do when a civ (like I try to hard)

llama, you seemed convinced TH was bad. What happened to that suspicion that you're now going with Snowman?



Spacedaisy, I said the same thing about LC.
As for BWT, from what I've played with him, a more engaged and active BWT is a baddie BWT. So in my eyes, it doesn't bode well for him...


I won't be around starting this afternoon until Saturday night my time. I'm never here

At the risk of sounding even more not in the midst of things "like you expect FZ", what has been revealed, and what is everyone talking about when asking about Epi and the eye?

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm hearing a lot of "This is not typical FZ." not so much "This is not typical civ FZ." can anyone reconcile the two for me?

This!! Has anyone really played with me when baddie? I wasn't a baddie here except for one game here where people voted for me because I was on a team with MP who went after me on the first day and everyone said he goes after his own team? I was lynched the second day and not because people really thought I was acting like a baddie, but because of MP.
Go and check the games you people lynched me as a civ, and see that the reasons were "I was being too defensive" and all that crap.


Bea is my new suspicion. I haven't thought about this before, but lately, every time I read a post by her, it seems as though she's not bringing anything of her own. First it was Trice. People were waiting to hear from her, because apparently she was supposed to know his game really well. This is what she said

bea wrote:
I'm still like 6 or 7 pages behind, but at the moment, as much as I love tricey - I am leaning toward thinking Aces is on to something. For me, it's the misrepresentation of Aces's vote post that's really hard for me to get past.

Then she gives her last evaluation of the day, claiming, just as I have, that Trice is looking elsewhere while Aces is focused only on Trice, and she doesn't feel comfortable voting for either. She says basically nothing of substance on anyone else, and says exactly what someone else (don't remember who) said about me on contemplating voting for Snowman and Zombarella and not seeing me do much.

bea wrote:Finally caught up - reading through here's my thinking:

1) Tricey and Aces - I have a hard time see how tricey doesn't see his quote as misrepresenting what Aces was saying - cuz that's how it read to me as well. That said, he has been looking at other things besides just aces which gives me some decent feelings about him. Aces, while more vocal than he has been of late, does seem pretty lazor focused on tricey and just tricey - there's lots going on. I get being passionate and sure you are right, but wow! Not sure if I feel comfortable voting for either of them.

2) Interesting observations about teefies. I tend to always suspect him for stuff and I'm only right sometimes. I could see voting for him just for his Dr Wo slip up...

3) I have LITERALLY no idea why llama has 3 votes already. TH's isn't really explained, LC never explained why either and BR said she was voting someone else who appears to be no where near Llama on the poll. To top that off, llama's seemed pretty ok to me.

4) I could actually see myself voting FZ. Her focus on Snowman and Zombra seems odd given their neweness to a wonky full game. "Not baddie hunting" feels very pot and kettle from FZ as I've not really seen her do much but try to wiggle out of being caught saying odd things and the whole Zombra not baddie hunting thing.

She voted like 4 minutes before the lynch ended, well after Trice's lynch was secured. Her reasons for voting me were practically the same as my reasons for thinking of voting Snowman and Zombarella.

Then, there are a few more posts where she says things, but in fact, say nothing. like this one:

bea wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

I get what you are saying here and I agree with it llama.

I also agree with Epi that it's more than odd that Rusty isn't posting in here.

I just don't know if that makes him bad or what that makes him. *Something* is going on with Rusty, I just can't figure out what it is.

linki- also what MM said. Isn't there any civ role that could have that sort of description/secret

more linki- I'm always curious as to how missed voters would answer that. Dunno that it changes my mind, I just like to hear how their brains are working. So you are going with "IDK how I would have voted but here's my current thoughts on people" then FZ? I just want to make sure I'm reading the jist of it correctly.

more linki. posting anyway.

and this. Lots of questions but no actual baddie hunting.

bea wrote:TH voted llama pretty quick day 1 with no reason why too.

Wotchyouthinkin' TH?

Boo - that's a good question. Do you find anything odd in the people who answered epi as well?

linki - ok TH you think llama is a bad llama - any reason why?

And she's only going after me once again, even though she admits she's never seen my baddie game

bea wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm hearing a lot of "This is not typical FZ." not so much "This is not typical civ FZ." can anyone reconcile the two for me?

I wish I could, but I don't really recall her being a baddie in a game we played together. I know I replaced her as a baddie in a game on K-site, but I'm not gonna lie, that game was so close to over, I did the baddie move of saying I was catching up but never really doing it.

To conclude, because this is a long post:
1. She's using other's suspicions not giving anything of her own.
2. Her reasoning for going after me are the same as what she's accused me of doing, not to mention she keeps saying how I supposedly play, yet she's never seen me as a baddie.
3. She's asking a lot of questions but not saying anything conclusive apart from her "gut feeling" about me. It's like she seems right in the middle of things, but it feels not genuine

Interesting, Julliets. Maybe Epi is on to something after all

thellama73 wrote:

boo wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

boo wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I just have a hard time believing that MP would give a baddie a role that would be so easy to detect by not being able to post.

People are also acting like that's somehow more likely because while he hasn't posted Russ still has had some activity. He voted in the D0 poll. He didn't vote D1. It's entirely possible (and imo a far better explanation) that he read none of the D0 discussion, came into the thread, figured it's D0 and he could treat it like a normal one (they've mostly become something people don't put any thought in and just use to establish that they got their role PM and are ready to play) and voted without posting and hasn't been back to the game since.

I'd still lynch him for it, because a non-participant is valueless, but people have a strange willingness to let that go here, apparently to the point where deciding that a role that isn't allowed to post at all somehow makes sense.

And this I don't understand about other websites. Why lynch a non-participant when you can lynch someone with an actualy suspicion? The lynch is the civvie's biggest asset, so it would be silly to use it on a player for not speaking. There is 0 evidence (for those who like facts), and it's too early to pass judgment on it.

Linki @Epi: I can think of 2 reasons.
1) He lost interest in the game after his Day 0 post. (I'm unconvinced this is the reason)
2) He has something to gain by being silent. I just finished watching Episode 25. I wouldn't say it centers around Rem and Misa though, but they are involved, and I do suddenly see where you are coming from. I'll give no spoilers though.

Because lynching a participant over a non-participant encourages non-participation. Non-participants add nothing to the game. Participants do, regardless of their alignment, they're still there making the game fun. Keeping the non-participant around hoping they eventually stop being a lousy player and actually play or get replaced while killing off people who are actually playing just punishes the people actually playing.

This isn't a new argument, and for whatever reason (they think one person who isn't even playing can help them win I guess) there are still people who don't seem to get it.

Where have you been all my life?

Yeah, I have to side Boo on this. That said, I think it's more a point of punishment and not something that in fact helps the civvies. But if we go and lynch some players who barely post a few times, maybe the civvies will lose (like that doesn't happen often), but possibly, the low posters would stop using that strategy, or stop playing altogether. It always feels unfair that a player who posts a lot gets scrutinized for his posts. Even If someone is a baddie and is giving it his all by posting and putting himself out there to be looked at, he should be awarded for it, not punished by being lynched over those who barely contribute to the game. That's my stance

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I think the FZ case is interesting. She stated she was thinking about voting for me and I hit her back hard. After that, she immediately backed off, which is not what I expected her to do. She's definitely someone I want to look at more going into Day 2.

For crying out loud, that's how I play. I accuse people and hear what they have to say, and then decide.

Why am I not on your list of "might have voted fors"?

Because as I told you yesterday, even though I didn't agree with your suspicions of TH, our back and forth made me feel better about you.

Can I ask a question? Why do people even bother discussing things with people if it's not for the sake of hearing what they say and deciding if they believe them?
For me, I get suspicious, I attack, I read what the other person says. If I still think it's fishy, I attack again, and read their answer again. If I'm eased, I lay off for the time being and look for a new "victim". I do this until I decide either to vote for a person or not.

And sometimes I just go with my gut on a whim. I'm a complicated person. I don't always do the exact same thing.


Bea, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. I went away not knowing who to vote for intending to come back in the hopes that more people will post and it would get easier, and since I haven't had time to fully catch up on what happened yesterday, I'm saying it like it is.

All I've done today is defend myself and I'm tired of it, not to mention I can't baddie hunt myself. I'll be leaving soon. Very bad behaviour, I know

linki: Boo, do you want a dishonest answer? Because if I have no idea who I would have voted for, that's what I say. If I'd been there, believe me I would have voted. I don't know who, but I would.
I've played many many many games, and not once have I missed a vote. Ever!!

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:Since people seem to want to know who I would have voted for, even if I don't know, I'll give you some of my thoughts.

I started out thinking Aces was bad because how he had a tunnel vision regarding Trice, but his replies to me seemed more genuine when I asked about it. He's still up there on my list, and not because he voted for a civ, but because of the way he was so sure about it and didn't even bother looking at anyone else. So I'm keeping an eye.

With Snowman, I agree with Rico that the fact he found nothing to say was really fishy, and since it was freaking day 1, it was a better reason for me to vote for him than someone who I initially suspected but got a better feel of him later. So maybe him.

I think LC is flying way under the radar, but I don't know if it's because of RL or something else.

I have no idea what to say about Boo's vote for BWT. I need to go back and read it.
I don't know what to think about Epi and DH either. At least Dh is following his suspicions. Epi just talked forever about lynching Russ, and argued endlessly with DH, but ended up voting for me. Not sure exactly why.
And TH, not idea what's going on there. I can't see baddie TH just vote without trying to seem like he's building a case, but he's not really baddie hunting either, so not sure what to make of it.

And I was so impressed with Zombarella's aggressive first game, and the way she just jumped into the deep water, which had no connection to the type of the game, that when she seemed to be mellow, it made me very concerned. Then she came in, and I wanted to wait to see how she posts, hence why I didn't vote at that time, only to later fall asleep.


10 linkis: are you satisfied now?
And the deadline for me is when I go to sleep, not when it really is deadline. Excuse me for living on the other side of the world.

Nope. That was some A grade throwing out names, but not only is the question of "who would you have voted for if you had voted" not one I really value when a missed voter answers it after the fact, you didn't even answer the question to satisfy people who can be satisfied by an answer to the question.

I was being honest. Something a civvie does. Like I couldn't just give you a name that I used yesterday and told you that's probably where my vote would have gone. You people have a really weird way of baddie hunting.

thellama73 wrote:I think the FZ case is interesting. She stated she was thinking about voting for me and I hit her back hard. After that, she immediately backed off, which is not what I expected her to do. She's definitely someone I want to look at more going into Day 2.

For crying out loud, that's how I play. I accuse people and hear what they have to say, and then decide.

Since people seem to want to know who I would have voted for, even if I don't know, I'll give you some of my thoughts.

I started out thinking Aces was bad because how he had a tunnel vision regarding Trice, but his replies to me seemed more genuine when I asked about it. He's still up there on my list, and not because he voted for a civ, but because of the way he was so sure about it and didn't even bother looking at anyone else. So I'm keeping an eye.

With Snowman, I agree with Rico that the fact he found nothing to say was really fishy, and since it was freaking day 1, it was a better reason for me to vote for him than someone who I initially suspected but got a better feel of him later. So maybe him.

I think LC is flying way under the radar, but I don't know if it's because of RL or something else.

I have no idea what to say about Boo's vote for BWT. I need to go back and read it.
I don't know what to think about Epi and DH either. At least Dh is following his suspicions. Epi just talked forever about lynching Russ, and argued endlessly with DH, but ended up voting for me. Not sure exactly why.
And TH, not idea what's going on there. I can't see baddie TH just vote without trying to seem like he's building a case, but he's not really baddie hunting either, so not sure what to make of it.

And I was so impressed with Zombarella's aggressive first game, and the way she just jumped into the deep water, which had no connection to the type of the game, that when she seemed to be mellow, it made me very concerned. Then she came in, and I wanted to wait to see how she posts, hence why I didn't vote at that time, only to later fall asleep.


10 linkis: are you satisfied now?
And the deadline for me is when I go to sleep, not when it really is deadline. Excuse me for living on the other side of the world.

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:This has never happened to me. I don't miss votes. Ever! But I had to leave yesterday to watch a movie with my husband and while I wanted to vote before, I couldn't make up my mind, so I decided to wait until after we finish watching, and I fell asleep in the middle of the movie. Now I might get punished and I didn't finish the movie I've been badly wanting to see (Grand Budapest hotel), and we have to return it.


Anyway, I see that you lynched Trice. I'm at work so I don't have time to read everything or check the voting poll, but if it was closely tied with someone else, I'm even more sorry for missing it.

I'll be back later

How can one possibly fall asleep during Grand Budapest Hotel? *votes FZ*

Who would you have voted for, if you would have returned?

I know That's what happens when you go to sleep at 2 am and wake up at 7 am four times a week.

I have no idea, and that's why I waited. I know some people are seeing me as a baddie because I'm kind of all over the place this game, but screw them. I'm allowed to hesitate, and this game is giving me a headache. Too much conversation.
As a player who came from another site where one day lasts 5 real days, and there's endless talk, it was refreshing to not have so much to catch up when I play here. I can't concentrate. That's why I like the speed games, because there are less players. I find it easier to find suspicious posts when they are not drowned in a sea of posts and arguments.

And now back to catching up. By the way, didn't Trice die? Did anyone resurrect him? I guess I'll find out

This has never happened to me. I don't miss votes. Ever! But I had to leave yesterday to watch a movie with my husband and while I wanted to vote before, I couldn't make up my mind, so I decided to wait until after we finish watching, and I fell asleep in the middle of the movie. Now I might get punished and I didn't finish the movie I've been badly wanting to see (Grand Budapest hotel), and we have to return it.


Anyway, I see that you lynched Trice. I'm at work so I don't have time to read everything or check the voting poll, but if it was closely tied with someone else, I'm even more sorry for missing it.

I'll be back later

I guess I'll have to come before I go to sleep and deicde

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yeah, I'm glad I held off on my vote. I don't think we should be lynching llama today.

Are you going to vote TH?

S~V~S wrote:

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:BR said she was voting for Trice but her vote is on llama

Oh, thanks a lot, BR.

I used sarcastic orange. Happy?

I think it's between Zombarella and Snowman for me. While I hate to vote for Zoombarella after the nice things she said about me, I've seen her play and she's not giving half of it this game. Yeah, she has another game, but this is getting closer to deadline and she's posted just enough to stay under the radar. In the other game she's more aggressive, and came charging into the game. I don't see any of it right now.


linki: Don't hosts let players change their vote if it's placed by mistake?

You're going to vote for a new player whose only game has been a speed game that was unconventional at most, and who then got dropped into this wild & crazy thread, for being nice to you?

Yes, I was going to, and then she came. I saw her on the other game and was really impressed with her take no prisoners attitude, which I'm not really seeing yet, but maybe she'll provide it now. But I have to go, damn it

Zomberella12 wrote:I'm here. Reading posts from today.

@Llama, so I think my assessment of your posting was based on length not number. I'm gonna have to reassess how I assess. Anyway, not voting for you today.

Now you come?

Dang, I need to go, and I don't think I'll be back before going to sleep. I don't feel comfortable voting for any of those with votes yet Zombarealla, if you're a civvie, I'm really sorry.

*votes zombarealla*

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:BR said she was voting for Trice but her vote is on llama

Oh, thanks a lot, BR.

I used sarcastic orange. Happy?

I think it's between Zombarella and Snowman for me. While I hate to vote for Zoombarella after the nice things she said about me, I've seen her play and she's not giving half of it this game. Yeah, she has another game, but this is getting closer to deadline and she's posted just enough to stay under the radar. In the other game she's more aggressive, and came charging into the game. I don't see any of it right now.


linki: Don't hosts let players change their vote if it's placed by mistake?

BR said she was voting for Trice but her vote is on llama

As for BWT, he strikes me as someone who posts more when he's a baddie. Right now, he might be posting a little more than his average, but I can't be sure

thellama73 wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote: Nothing personal but I don't see why anybody would bother trying to flatter one person, in a game of 27 what is that going to accomplish?

Having a vocal defender can be incredibly valuable. Picking one person to buddy up with is a tried and true baddie tactic.

What he said.

Ricochet wrote:Finally finished catching up after being away for two and a half hours. Took me only 30 minutes.

The harrowing part is that I should re-read one more time the Ace-Trice banter, because Trice is still probably my top candidate today (D0 behaviour + a few things on D1 that binged me like charging spacedaisy by stripping all her posts/behaviour of contest and a few instance of misrepresenting Ace's views in his banter with him; he's fighting to the bitter end with him, alright, but I think it's more than a opposite-spectrum feud between them and I still suspect Trice more than seeing Ace hunting with an agenda).

Snowman also really pinged me today if he seriously believes this is a game where nothing has happened so far and not much can be made to suspect anyone so far. In contrast to Bass (whose vote and the fact that he called it random is more damning, while his lack of activity isn't as much), Russ or others, he's liekly my profile of baddie skimming everything and wanting to lay low right now.

christ @ amount of linki

Hmm, I think I agree on Snowman

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:I feel like I'm channelling my inner Epi. Sorry if anything I've said is coming off rude, llama

It was said with the utmost respect and love

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

thellama73 wrote: A large part of the game of mafia (at least as I perceive it) is detecting baddies through their behavior. Odd behavior does not necessarily mean they are bad, but it is often a clue. Detecting minor discrepancies is one of the most valuable tools in the civvie utility belt.

echoing this part in particular in case the 2 times I've said it this game weren't enough

Emphasis on the minor, not huge changes that you can see on the ground from a plain in the sky

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

FZ. wrote:Even though I disagree about TH, this back and forth made me feel a little better about you llama

linki: the secrets part was just for flavour and because I like throwing around crazy theories wondering if one might actually be true. The fact that TH is acting so out of character to his baddie and civ behaviour is what is preventing me from seeing him as bad, at least for now

I don't see that as civvie behaviour. Crazy theories are called cray-cray for a reason, because they aren't likely to be tied to anything logical. Baddies like to speculate over mystery roles, and I believe they also enjoy shrouding the game in mystery.

For example, Kira's sympathizers need all the detectives dead to win. For that reason, we should assume that all detectives are on the civvie side unless otherwise proven.

Don't see how the first part is related to the second one, but at least I agree with the second...

And you don't have to like it, but it helps me.

Now, I really don't know who I want to vote for. There's a part of me that thinks the way Zomba said she liked the way I analyse things, that thinks she was trying to get on my good side, but if it's genuine, I'll feel bad. Then there's LC who has acted very calm and not crazy at all, which is something I've come to expect from him. But maybe he's busy.
I don't know what to think about Trice and Aces, because everyone seems to see Trice as bad, and maybe I'm missing something. Since I've defended him, he seems to be asking me more questions, again, maybe trying to get on my good side, or maybe he just feels I'm listening to him. so, I don't know

Even though I disagree about TH, this back and forth made me feel a little better about you llama

linki: the secrets part was just for flavour and because I like throwing around crazy theories wondering if one might actually be true. The fact that TH is acting so out of character to his baddie and civ behaviour is what is preventing me from seeing him as bad, at least for now

I feel like I'm channelling my inner Epi. Sorry if anything I've said is coming off rude, llama

Guide to Common sense 101:

1. Look at a player's past games both civvie and baddie.
2. Compare current game to games from each alignment
3. Don't make obvious and silly conclousions

triceratopzeuhl wrote:FZ - You think his normal civvy games consists of, essentially, refusing to contributing in a meaningful fashion to the lynch efforts, but also that he's a smart player? (no offense TH ;o)

FZ - linki - I don't see anybody who I would describe as trying to get lynched in this game, TH maybe depending on your interpretation of his posts

No, I think there's a reason he's acting this way, and it's not necessarily because he's bad. It's like in Are you being served mafia when MP was acting so out of character and was a civ who had to act really weird and do things we didn't know about.

And yeah, I was referring to TH.

@linki: Hi, my name is llama and I ignore common sense and then call my behaviour "drawing conclusions from available facts"

I wonder if there are people whose secret roles say that when they are lynched, they don't die but rather change alignment or something happens to them, which is why people are behaving odd hoping to be lynched

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

FZ. wrote: I thought that TH's early vote was a big hint to him being baddie, but when I saw that he basically has no reason to vote like he did, I changed my mind and started thinking that his behaviour is not related to his alignment but to something else I have no idea what. So yeah, at least for the moment, that big sign for me became null

You think that voting without even the slightest attempt at justification is civvy behaviour?

No, but a smart baddie, like I think TH is, wouldn't be caught dead without justifying his vote and trying to "build a case" because that's his civvie game, and he's not that stupid to change it so drastically

thellama73 wrote:So TH is bad:

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I noticed somebody has already voted for Llama. They must feel pretty confident about their vote.

When I said I was waiting to see something, it was regarding TH. all the last games I've played with him (at least to the extent I remember), when he was a civ, he voted almost last. He's a lot more indecisive. This very early vote gets you the and maybe even my vote

TH is acting out of character:

FZ. wrote:Two things are catching my eye at the moment:

1. Way too many people are behaving out of character.
Epi wants to vote for an absent player.
TH is voting early for llama without any reason whatsoever.
Ace is apparently posting a lot more than people are used from him.
I had more, but I forgot by the time I got here.

2. There seems to be some very strong 1 on 1 battles, which is something I'm not used to seeing in these games, especially not on day 1
DH and Epi
Ace and Trice
TH and llama

I'm assuming this is somehow related to the nature of the game, but I'm also thinking that maybe there are roles of winning terms that require taking out a specific player. Not sure what it says about the alignment of the players. I've played games where one of the mafia had to kill another in order to win, and I know the opposite can be done as well.

But these strong convictions are worrying on day 1 to say the least.

TH is suddenly good:

FZ. wrote:SVS, you said that you expect baddies not to be as aggressive because they don't know who they are lynching. But the thing is, they'll probably be voting anyway, and the chances of them getting a baddie are just as high when they play a less aggressive game. I would say this is their chance to go really strongly after players because if they take out one of their own, they'll just end up looking good without having to carry the guilt of throwing a team mate under the bus ("hey, I didn't know").

So maybe those going so strongly after others have an agenda after all

linki: llama, the thing that's making me hesitate with TH is the fact that he seems so casual and laid back, which I agree with SVS is more indicative of his civ game

TH continues to act out of character:

FZ. wrote:It's funny how TH is not even trying to come up with a reason to vote llama

TH CONTINUES to act out of character:

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I can think of a few reasons for TH to not want to vote for somebody he thinks is bad

1) TH is bad and doesn't want to kill a teammate
2) TH is bad and knows that's not his teammate, but doesn't want to be involved with lynching a civ
3) TH threw out a random idea he doesn't even believe

anyone got other theories?

FWIW, I never made the connection before that the strict daily regimen thing would mean posting challenges, but it seems possible now that it's been pointed out

I have not ruled out voting for Russ in subsequent lynches, and hopefully by then we'll also hear his side of the story (if the silence only lasts today).

Did you get a challenge to vote for llama and get people talking about how ridiculous your vote is?

TH is good and anyone who says otherwise must die. This emerged slightly after TH openly said he doesn't want to lynch baddies.

FZ. wrote: Crazy enough, I'm actually contemplating voting for llama. I don't feel like he's his usual self. I feel like he knows TH's reason for voting him can't be true baddie TH, because he wouldn't do that, yet he's going after him and trying to find something to justify it with. I also don't think that TH's indecisiveness regarding the D0 vote was fishy in any way, and I don't think llama really thought it was either.
Something about how llama is playing strikes me as not genuine

Also there's this. People defending Yotsuba are likely bad:

FZ. wrote:The person most likely to feel it's important to depict Yotsuba as good guys is the one who's a Kira

Discussing Yotsuba is a waste of time. Nothing to see here.

FZ. wrote: Why does it even matter at this point? If you think Epi is a Yotsuba, do you really think he's the one we should be focusing on now? Unless you think he's a baddie talking about the Yotsuba. If he's a baddie, making the Yotsuba seem baddies to us is much better strategy. Either way, it's a waste of time

Nobody's buying what you're selling, FZ.

I thought that TH's early vote was a big hint to him being baddie, but when I saw that he basically has no reason to vote like he did, I changed my mind and started thinking that his behaviour is not related to his alignment but to something else I have no idea what. So yeah, at least for the moment, that big sign for me became null

Oh, and can I just say this whole back and forth between Trice and Aces has lost its charm We get it, you're both suspicious of one another. Raise your hand anyone who is still reading their posts to one another

Black Rock wrote:

boo wrote:I'm all about that bass ('bout that bass) because I don't believe that random vote was random, and while I don't doubt that him not being able to be around caused him to vote early, I do doubt that the vote was truly random when it managed to land on Trice, who by that point was taking flak and was (and continues to be) one of several people I think a mafia member not wanting to risk missing the vote but also not wanting to waste their vote would vote for.

Now alone, that wouldn't be enough to warrant attention (at least in this D1 mine field)... BUT which option did bass vote for? Normal. Ok good, right? No, because which voter was he? The 11th. How many votes did L/Light have? 9 (total and when bass voted, he was the 26th voter overall after SD was the 25th overall when she voted for L/Light).

How many posts does bass have? 4.

What do they say?

"Real happy this game started." Ok, sure.

"I voted normal lynch." I mean, it is the right option, but literally nothing else, no quote even using other peoples ideas. The very essence of low effort.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:So given all that, why the hell would a baddie vote for L/Light lynches? That's a stupid move for them and the exact opposite of laying low. It makes much more sense to look at the people voting for normal lynches and/or the people tossing their votes away on options that clearly wont win.

Because WIFOM.

Today's discussion has been enjoyable, but I think that behavior after the gameplay has been decided will prove more useful.

I agree.

Then this one. Ok, thank you for that very useful insight.

Then there's the vote post where he apologizes for having to vote now (I buy) and says he's voting randomly (I don't buy).


The first three posts are nothing. I think they were there because Bass is mafia, wants to fly low, but doesn't want to be at the bottom of the list when we look at total posts (and guess what, with 4 posts he's currently sitting with 7 people with the same or fewer posts, a nice buffer from being to far down in case people look at low posters, while still flying low).

No treble.

Ok, I said I would look at this post when I got back so I found it. BWT, I see what you are saying BUT I am seeing it from a different perspective. Everything Boo says seems more opportunistic then correct. He has taken 4 posts and made a case. Bass is often a low poster, not always, but often. It is day one and his day 0 vote wasn't an option any one considered baddie. I don't like this case at all, it smells baddie to me and now has put boo on my list.

I remember thinking the same, but I'm not sure how much Boo has played with Bass. Most times I see Boo around is when he's hosting. So not sure he'd know that about Bass.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: Crazy enough, I'm actually contemplating voting for llama. I don't feel like he's his usual self. I feel like he knows TH's reason for voting him can't be true baddie TH, because he wouldn't do that, yet he's going after him and trying to find something to justify it with. I also don't think that TH's indecisiveness regarding the D0 vote was fishy in any way, and I don't think llama really thought it was either.
Something about how llama is playing strikes me as not genuine

So you think it's totally cool that TH openly doesn't want to lynch baddies, and my pointing that out is not genuine. Good to know.

Yeah

S~V~S wrote:

FZ. wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:That is helpful.

While DH and Epi tango, and trice and Aces rave, boo feels like the odd one out in this party.

I am not seeing bad boo so far, not at all.

And FZ, "wot" meaning I disagree that discussing the Yotsuba is a baddie waste of time. They have a Kira and they have secret win conditions. I would rather lynch direct baddies, yes, but the Yotsuba may have a kill at some point, some rather vague point, Lol, so

So if you knew someone was this Yotsuba, you'd lynch them now instead of looking for a sure baddie?

Noooo, and that is not even close to what I said. You said discussing the Yotsuba was a waste of time. I disagree.

I clearly said right up there ^^^ that I would rather lynch direct baddies.

Ah, okay. I still think that at this point, it's better to focus on finding a baddie instead of lynching a Yotsuba. We can save them for later, and it's not like we know Epi is one.


Crazy enough, I'm actually contemplating voting for llama. I don't feel like he's his usual self. I feel like he knows TH's reason for voting him can't be true baddie TH, because he wouldn't do that, yet he's going after him and trying to find something to justify it with. I also don't think that TH's indecisiveness regarding the D0 vote was fishy in any way, and I don't think llama really thought it was either.
Something about how llama is playing strikes me as not genuine


linki: I have no idea how often Trice changes his avatar

Turnip Head wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I have not ruled out voting for Russ in subsequent lynches, and hopefully by then we'll also hear his side of the story (if the silence only lasts today).

Did you get a challenge to vote for llama and get people talking about how ridiculous your vote is?

No. I voted for llama because I wanted to.

Oh well, in that case...

The person most likely to feel it's important to depict Yotsuba as good guys is the one who's a Kira

Turnip Head wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I can think of a few reasons for TH to not want to vote for somebody he thinks is bad

1) TH is bad and doesn't want to kill a teammate
2) TH is bad and knows that's not his teammate, but doesn't want to be involved with lynching a civ
3) TH threw out a random idea he doesn't even believe

anyone got other theories?

FWIW, I never made the connection before that the strict daily regimen thing would mean posting challenges, but it seems possible now that it's been pointed out

I have not ruled out voting for Russ in subsequent lynches, and hopefully by then we'll also hear his side of the story (if the silence only lasts today).

Did you get a challenge to vote for llama and get people talking about how ridiculous your vote is?